[Speculation] Italian States/Papal States/Venice
- Thread starter sukritact
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 16,937
I'd prefer the Venetian Republic myself.
Trias
Donkey with three behinds
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 594
I think the inclusion of an modern italian civ is very unlikely. Modern (and renaissance) Italy are already represented in the game is the modern incarnation of the Roman civ. (The connection between modern and ancient Rome is much closer than that between modern Germany and the ancient Germanic tribes which are currently represented as one civ.)
Moreover, the Italian city states are a too good source of recognizable city states to waste on a civ that is already represented in some sense.
So modern italy? Probably never gonna happen.
Moreover, the Italian city states are a too good source of recognizable city states to waste on a civ that is already represented in some sense.
So modern italy? Probably never gonna happen.
I think Italy stands a chance - they play well into the culture system and Great works, so something could be done there. The Rome thing is bizzare - they're completely different political entities that happened to share the same capital. As for the city states, there are plenty of recognisable cities you could have to replace them - Casablanca, Bogota, Havana, Dakar, Santiago, Wellington 
D) and so on, CS names shouldn't be an issue
D) and so on, CS names shouldn't be an issue
They AREN'T represented by Rome if you ask me; you have a Roman leader, Roman UUs, and a Roman UA, nothing to relate to modern or even Renaissance Italy. By contrast you have elements which span the ages for Germany. Plus we have the City States.
Me too, but given what Firaxis has done with Germany and Denmark, I think Italy is more likely
. Still would be an awesome addition IMO 
.But Italy here isn't a political entity. It's a concept made by unifying the Renaissance Italian states.
JFD
Kathigitarkh
The Papal States would be potentially the best option to facilitate a civilisation geared toward the World Congress, though I'm unsure exactly how. On the other hand, it would make more sense for a religious bonus (such as starting with a Religion from the offset of discovering Theology). I think the Papacy would play best with a combination of Diplomatic and Religious focus. The recent Papal Election and the presumably large demographic of Christian players would mean that the civ is certainly recognisable enough to increase the marketability of the expansion.
Venice, on the other hand, is the Civ that I would rather of the three; as a Naval-Mercantile Civ which I wanted out of England. Granted, the Majapahit could potentially fill the role, but I'm more familiar with Venice. It would be nice if Venice's UA would allow for the hiring of mercenaries from City-States, but it could also certainly work with something orientated toward the new trade route system. As for Venice's chances overall I couldn't say, but I suspect it has a higher chance than a unified Italy (the tendency for crude amalgamations aside). That Italy may have been in the Scramble for Africa might indicate its inclusion, but I'm not sure the unified Kingdom best represents Italian culture-if only for that it came so much later than the peak of that culture.
Venice, on the other hand, is the Civ that I would rather of the three; as a Naval-Mercantile Civ which I wanted out of England. Granted, the Majapahit could potentially fill the role, but I'm more familiar with Venice. It would be nice if Venice's UA would allow for the hiring of mercenaries from City-States, but it could also certainly work with something orientated toward the new trade route system. As for Venice's chances overall I couldn't say, but I suspect it has a higher chance than a unified Italy (the tendency for crude amalgamations aside). That Italy may have been in the Scramble for Africa might indicate its inclusion, but I'm not sure the unified Kingdom best represents Italian culture-if only for that it came so much later than the peak of that culture.
What I said was a response to someone saying that Rome and Italy are different political entities. The argument has seemed to be that Rome has covered Italy in the series, I find it odd that in the first game with City States which can directly cover the Italian City states that we all of a sudden have had this flare up since the announcement of this expansion pack.
I'd say Venice would be most likely if it weren't for that tendency. Although gameplay-wise I think a unified Italy could potentially be more interesting. Florence for its role as a birthplace of Great People and Great Works, Venice for it's trading, and the Papal States for their political power. If you could make them complement each other it would certainly be interesting. You go against history by melding them together though. they weren't so powerful when united.
If at least Rome had the forum as a UB, Italy's only thing that could overlap, the Piazza, would be something to consider. But even that is out of the game (not that piazzas and forums are the same thing, but they were used sometimes in the same way, and resembles one another).
I think Italy's chance is quite good. And that both cultural and mercantile focus could be explored (even at the same time, for a tall mercantile/cultural civ). Only the UU is a bit less obvious, but there are options (and it's not meant to be the most important aspecto of the civ, anyway)
With Cavour as a leader?
Piedmont-Sardinia with Cavour would be my bet in the case of a Italian civ (quite a Bismarck-like approach)
I think Italy's chance is quite good. And that both cultural and mercantile focus could be explored (even at the same time, for a tall mercantile/cultural civ). Only the UU is a bit less obvious, but there are options (and it's not meant to be the most important aspecto of the civ, anyway)
With Cavour as a leader?
Piedmont-Sardinia with Cavour would be my bet in the case of a Italian civ (quite a Bismarck-like approach)
To be honest, representing such a influential group of nations with City States isn't that great. There's no difference between them except for the name and song. The flaring up is just because the two of the major themes (culture and trade) fit the hypothetical civ perfectly.
Totally agree.
The expansions themes just fit Italy too well(new trade mechanic, culture being reworked, Scramble for Africa and an Italian wonder out of nowhere).
Dark_Jedi06
"Deus ex Machina."
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,399
I have no desire to see an Italian civilization in the expansion, the Italian peninsula is already pretty well covered by the Romans and the city states of Venice, Florence, Vatican City, etc.
There are much more underrepresented geographic areas that should be populated instead.
There are much more underrepresented geographic areas that should be populated instead.
Why do people undervalue the City States so much? They were City States, they were not Civilizations in their own right. The reason City States are in the game is from what I've heard because of them and their influence in that time period. We seem to have turned City States into "Minor Civilizations" here for some reason, and I don't quite get it. We rather some weird duct taped together "Renaissance Italy" than have them as City States as they were, yet some slammed other "Civs" done in a similar manner at times.
But they have been done and I see no reason they would not continue "Duct-Taping civs". It honestly makes very little difference for gameplay what the Florentine city state is called. If it were called Angkor, there would be no difference in gameplay. A potential Italian/Papal/Venetian civ however, would effect gameplay greatly.
Well, other than Condottieri, you could have Artigiani replace workers, or Schiavona/Schiavoni, replace Longswordsmen. I'm sure there are lots of other choices if you look a bit
Technically we shouldn't have Greece in game then and instead have Athens, Sparta, Thebes and Corinth as city states. Yet we have Greece in game and people are happy. Even if people bashed on Polynesia for it's duct tape style, there are still more people who are simply happy about the civ then there are people who can't live with a Maori lead by Kameha.
Nah, we definitely need more of Europe, I mean, we only have:
Austria
Byzantium
Celtia
Denmark
England
France
Germany
Greece
The Huns
The Netherlands
Rome
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Poland
I mean, that's only 15 of the 35 known in the game...
Similar threads
